MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Judiciary

 

Seventy-First Session

March 9, 2001

 

 

The Senate Committee on Judiciarywas called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 8:30 a.m., on Friday, March 9, 2001, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Senator Mark A. James, Chairman

Senator Jon C. Porter, Vice Chairman

Senator Mike McGinness

Senator Maurice Washington

Senator Valerie Wiener

Senator Terry Care

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Senator Dina Titus (Excused) 

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Bradley A. Wilkinson, Committee Counsel

Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst

Heather Dion, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

John C. Morrow, Lobbyist, Chief Deputy, Washoe County Public Defender

William Gary Crews, CPA, Legislative Auditor, Audit Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau

Rocky J. Cooper, CPA, Audit Supervisor, Audit Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau

Carlos Brandenburg, Ph.D., Administrator, Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services, Department of Human Resources

Rex Reed, Medical Administrator, Department of Prisons

Dr. Ted D’Amico, Medical Director, Department of Prisons

David S. Gibson, Lobbyist, Clark County

 

Chairman James opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 197.

 

SENATE BILL 197:  Authorizes department of prisons to request money from contingency fund if offenders’ store fund has insufficient money to provide for needs of therapeutic community. (BDR 16-23)

 

Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County Senatorial District No. 3, gave testimony on S.B. 197.  She read her written testimony into the record (Exhibit C).  Senator Wiener’s testimony stated she supported S.B. 197.  Her testimony addressed the example of Warm Springs Correctional Center, which is a therapeutic community (TC) in the Nevada prison system.  The TC, better known as WINGS (Willing Inmates in Nevada Gaining Sobriety) is funded with 75 percent federal residential substance abuse treatment grant monies and 25 percent state matching funds from the prison’s inmate welfare fund. 

 

Senator Wiener’s written testimony (Exhibit C) provided numerous examples of the success of the TC.  It is with these examples that Senator Wiener stated she seeks support for S.B. 197.  She concluded the testimony with the hope that the TC program will be expanded to other facilities.

 

Senator Porter stated he had recently visited the prison in Carson City, and declared he was unaware there was gaming previously within the prison system.  He asked Senator Wiener if she was aware of this.  Senator Wiener stated she was unaware of the previous gaming within the prison system. 

 

John C. Morrow, Lobbyist, Chief Deputy, Washoe County Public Defender, stated he was in support of S.B. 197.  He said, “For many years this type of program has been needed in the prison system.”  Mr. Morrow indicated that in his experience dealing with parole violators, very seldom do violators come back to the system after going through this type of program, which was previously mentioned by Senator Wiener.  He continued, saying, “All the tools that help inmates once they get out of the system are valuable.” 

 

Chairman James closed the hearing on S.B. 197, and opened the hearing on S.B. 241.

 

SENATE BILL 241:  Revises provisions relating to certification panels that must determine whether certain prisoners who are eligible for parole constitute menace to health, safety or morals of others. (BDR 16-435)

 

Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District, testified on Senate Bill 241.  Senator Rhoads indicated that he was the chairman of the audit subcommittee of the Legislative Commission.  Last year the audit subcommittee heard an audit report, prepared by the legislative auditor, on the sex-offender certification panel, stated Senator Rhodes. 

 

Senator Rhoads acknowledged that the audit report raised concern.  He stated:

 

The audit found Nevada uses three-member panels to evaluate and certify when sex offenders should be considered for parole.  However, these panels operate without adequate guidance.  Although the Department of Prisons [DOP] performs most functions related to the panels, responsibility for the panel’s activities is not clear.  State law does not identify who is in charge of the panels, and the department does not view the panels as its responsibility.  Furthermore, panel activities are conducted without a formally designated chairman.  The lack of defining the responsibilities has hindered the development of sound processes for selecting panel members, conducting hearings and evaluating sex offenders.  As a result, certification hearings and evaluation methods are not consistent throughout the state.  In addition, the percentage of sex offenders certified varies widely among the prison institutions where panel meetings are held.  The audit was presented to the audit subcommittee on August 23, 2000.  The legislative auditor recommended, to our committee, legislation to address whom is responsible for the program as well as other related issues.  However, the deadline was past for Executive Branch agencies to request a bill draft request [BDR].  Consequently, the audit subcommittee agreed to provide a BDR for prisons to address the issues addressed in this audit. 

 

Senator Rhoads introduced William Gary Crews, who gave further information on the audit.

 

William Gary Crews, CPA, Legislative Auditor, Audit Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, began his testimony referring to page 7 of the Audit Report:  State of Nevada Department of Prisons, Sex Offender Certification Panel (Exhibit D. Original is on file in the Research Library.).  Mr. Crews stated that it is indicated in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 213.1214, which prohibits the State Board of Parole Commissioners (parole board) from releasing on parole a prisoner convicted of certain sex offenses unless the offender is first certified by a panel.  Mr. Crews stated that the statute also requires the panel consist of the administrator of Mental Health and Developmental Services (or designee), the director of the Department of Prisons (or designee), and a psychologist or psychiatrist licensed to practice in Nevada. 

 

Mr. Crews moved to page 10 of the report (Exhibit D), stating there is not sufficient clarity, in the current statute, of the responsibility of panel activity.  Specifically the report (Exhibit D) indicates the law does not identify a particular agency to oversee panel functions, nor an individual to administer the panel activities, stated Mr. Crews.  Also, although NRS 213.1214 requires certain representation on the panels, it does designate a chairman or assign responsibility to an individual for ensuring panel functions are carried out, Mr. Crews said. 

 

Mr. Crews stated page 10 gives information that the “Department of Prisons does not view the panels as its responsibility.”  Mr. Crews read into testimony a response from the Department of Prisons:

 

Nevada Revised Statutes are unclear as to whom, if anyone, is responsible for developing formalized procedures for this process . . . Since the panel is neither fish nor fowl; i.e., it is not a panel of employees of the Department of Prisons; there is no clear guidance as to the applicability of departmental regulations over nondepartmental members. 

 

Mr. Crews moved on to page 12 of the report (Exhibit D).  He stated the selection process for panel members is not defined in statute.  State law requires that one panelist be a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist, but does not define how this member is selected or by whom.  In addition, qualifications have not been established for designee panel members, stated Mr. Crews.  He indicated that during the audit period more than 50 different individuals participated on panels since July 1996, which increases the need for establishing qualifications.

 

Mr. Crews restated that NRS 213.1214 requires a psychologist or psychiatrist panel member, but does not describe how the member is chosen.  Typically, the licensed psychologist or psychiatrist panel member has been provided by the DOP, stated Mr. Crews.  Although the DOP management indicated the statute is unclear on providing for a psychologist or psychiatrist panel member, it has accepted the responsibility of providing the licensed psychiatrist because the mental health division has not always been able to provide the panelist, he added. 

 

Mr. Crews testified that numerous individuals participate on panels because the Department of Prisons’ director and mental health division administrator often select designees in their absence.  However, he stated, qualifications have not been established for designee panel members.  Also, training and experience requirements for designee panel members are not established in statute, and written policies have not been developed in this area.  He continued, saying certification decisions are based on each panel member’s professional judgment.  Therefore, the subjective nature of this process increases the need for qualifications.  Because certification decisions can have a significant impact on the public, prison system, inmates, victims, and family members, it is critical that qualifications be established for panel members, indicated Mr. Crews.

 

Mr. Crews stated that the rest of the report (Exhibit D) addressed the problems that have occurred due to the lack of responsibility for the program.  He gave the example, “The bottom of page 13, we talk about that policy and procedures have not been developed by the program.”  He broadened his example, going through the various pages of the report (Exhibit D) and addressing the problems such as measuring reports and panels, panelist-training requirement standards not being established, and inconsistent processes for conducting meetings. 

 

Furthermore, Mr. Crews stated, page 20 of the report (Exhibit D) outlines the outcomes of the results from panel meetings, indicating there is a wide variation from the institutions across the state.  Finally, page 21 shows a chart indicating the numbers of individuals evaluated, certified, and the percent that were certified. 

 

Mr. Crews concluded his testimony on the report, stating that the result of the audit was recommendations made to the Department of Prisons.  One of the recommendations was to request legislation clarifying responsibility for the program, identify who selects psychologist and psychiatrist panel members, and establish qualifications for designees on the panels. 

 

Senator Wiener noted on page 21, “the exclusion of Ely [State Prison] and also the Southern Nevada Women’s Correctional Facility.”  The report indicated that Ely State Prison was excluded because sex-offender treatment was not provided on a sustained basis.  Senator Wiener asked what was done at the women’s facility.

 

Mr. Crews deferred to Rocky Cooper to answer Senator Wiener’s question. 

 

Rocky J. Cooper, CPA, Audit Supervisor, Audit Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, identified himself and addressed Senator Wiener’s concern.  Mr. Cooper stated, “I believe the reason the Southern Nevada Women’s Correctional Facility was excluded was because there were only five evaluations that took place, and we wanted to provide a more representative example that occurred by using larger numbers.” 

 

Senator Wiener further expressed her concern, stating:

 

I am just curious if you had any information because you had put a statement here that Ely [State Prison] does not have a panel because they do not have a sustained program.  Do they have some way to address the problem?  Because, when you see a woman sex offender, it raises a red flag.  The stereotype of a sex offender is male, not the reality obviously.  And I am just wondering if they provide any programs or counseling or any kind of help, even though it is not statistically important for this hearing. 

 

Mr. Cooper answered Senator Wiener’s question, stating that as far as the programs for treating the offenders, there are representatives present from the prison that could answer her question more accurately.  Mr. Cooper stated the audit did not go into detail of the institutions’ programs.  However, the division was aware of the institutions that did have programs, he stated. 

 

Senator James contended he found it remarkable that the panels have been in place since 1967, but nothing has been done to correct the problems.  He stated the committee has heard numerous bills in the past that deal with the “psych” (psychosexual evaluation) panel.  Senator James questioned why the issue is coming up presently. 

 

Mr. Crews stated that the Assembly Committee on Elections, Procedures and Ethnics had an interim study on the program, but it did not get out of the Assembly because of too many competing studies last legislative session.  Mr. Crews declared there was a request that the Legislative Commission study the current program in the prison.  He also stated there were complaints from the public to spur the audit. 

 

Senator James asked who wrote the bill draft.  Senator Rhoads stated that it was the Legislative Counsel Bureau who drafted the bill.  Senator James drew attention to subsection 2 of S.B. 241, stating:

 

They have taken some of your recommendations about policies and procedures for conducting the certification hearings, to ensure the policies and procedures are a consistent process for evaluating sex offenders, and the policies and procedures to define and document the statutory observation requirement.  Those are just manifested in subsection 2, as something that the Department of Prisons will come up with, independent of the Legislature.  If we are doing this, should we not hear the testimony, and at least come up with some guidelines on our own? 

 

Mr. Crews responded to the comment of Senator James, stating, “The Department of Prisons had quite a bit of input into the bill, and believed they could develop the guidelines and regulations to administer this, if given the responsibility.” 

 

Senator James claimed the bill acts as a predicate to seek parole for particular offenses.  He continued, “We have indicated that the inmates must pass the panel, and have to have been observed while in prison, then meet certain criteria, maybe I need to hear from the experts on mental health for further explanation.”  Senator James explained there needs to be standardized criteria that are not in flux, otherwise there would not be an appropriate basis for determining someone’s liberty interest.  Senator Rhoads interjected that the audit recognized the criteria was inconsistent.  He also noted the fiscal note being only $13,000 a year. 

 

Carlos Brandenburg, Ph.D., Administrator, Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services, Department of Human Resources, came forth to testify on S.B. 241.  Dr. Brandenburg stated he was in support of S.B. 241. 

 

Dr. Brandenburg stated S.B. 241 is the result of a Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) audit of the state’s process for certifying sex offenders.  He testified that S.B. 241 “makes it clear that the Department of Prisons is responsible for administering the certification panel and the process of certification.”  Dr. Brandenburg continued, indicating S.B. 241 also requires the appropriate licensure boards license the professional staff on the certification panel.  In addition, he said of S.B. 241, “It adds the language that a state employee may not have cause of action brought against him or her by a prisoner.” 

 

Rex Reed, Medical Administrator, Department of Prisons, identified himself and introduced Dr. Ted D’Amico, Medical Director, Department of Prisons. 

 

Mr. Reed addressed Senator Wiener’s earlier concern of the Southern Nevada Women’s Correctional Facility.  Mr. Reed directed attention to the current statute; those guilty of child abuse, even if the abuse is not sexually motivated are still subject to the psychosexual evaluation. 

 

Senator James inquired of Mr. Reed, “What kind of method is used for establishing the three standardized criteria for the operation of the panel?”  He continued:

 

First, what is the method of policies and procedures for conducting the hearing and selecting a chairman.  Then, policies and procedures to ensure consistent process for evaluating sex offenders.  And finally, the method of policies and procedures to define and document the observation requirement, which is in the statute.  The requirement also states that the prisoner is required to be under observation during his or her incarceration. 

 

Dr. D’Amico replied to Senator James, “This is a burning issue that we have been concerned with for the last 3 years.”  He pointed out there were no budget capabilities to operate the panel.  And, he stated, the previous mental health director established an elaborate procedure that notably contains holes.  Dr. D’Amico reiterated that the holes are the inconsistency.

 

Dr. D’Amico contended that it was a priority to first identify the sex offenders in the system.  The identification process is done through classification of planning and, with the new director, levels of care and programs are a high issue within the system, he stated.  Dr. D’Amico directed attention to the Lovelock Correctional Center as an able facility to provide protective custody, and has been designed as “the place for our sex offenders.”  He contended that the Lovelock facility would hold the bulk of the sex offender population. 

 

Dr. D’Amico alluded to private contracts which have psychiatry services.  The psychiatric services would be contacted by the medical department to model what the Department of Prisons does in training in regards to sex offenders.  Also, he stated, to identify women sex offenders, there are methods of participation in training programs at the camp.  He added there is a satellite-training program, for sex offenders, in southern Nevada.

 

Dr. D’Amico explained the program for treatment would allow the panel to have a better observation and objective view of the offenders.  He continued, stating the program will provide consistent information on the offenders and the panel will go through an ongoing training program, which will provide them with the most current methods of treatment. 

 

Dr. D’Amico asserted the Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services is attempting to maximize their current resources to aggregate a training program, which is expected to begin March 19, 2001, in Lovelock.  He stated the training program should “suffice for about 285 sex offender inmates for a year’s program,” and there will be psychologists from the state housed in Lovelock who are providing their services to the program.

 

Presently, stated Dr. D’Amico, there is not any outside funding available for the program.  However, research from other states is available as a tool for understanding how they deal with such problems, and the different methods of criteria for sex offenders. 

 

Dr. D’Amico pointed out that sex offenders are classified, just as are other illnesses.  The classification is very specific such as incest, male-to-male, male-to-female, which allows for detailed understanding of the sex offender.  Dr. D’Amico stressed the program would provide a system of acknowledging those inmates who are ready for parole, and those who need more help.  He stated, “The training program is most significant by giving objective evidence to the panel.” 

 

Dr. D’Amico clarified that board members need to be certified by the state licensure board.  Also, identifying the panel in a single location would be a benefit because it would provide more consistency.  However, there may be difficultly of family members participating in the panel, and in those cases a video system would be available. 

 

Dr. D’Amico stated the procedures and protocol to run the panel involves how often the panel would be sent off for training sessions, and the transportation to meet with the panel.  He indicated the criteria have not been developed, but there are many ideas available. 

 

Mr. Reed added to Dr. D’Amico’s comments, referring back to Senator James’ previous question of how members are selected, ensuring the process is consistent, and how observation is documented. 

 

Mr. Reed drew attention, first, to the Department of Prisons contributing two of the three members to the panel.  If the bill passed as amended, the Director of Prisons will appoint the two.  He added the director is constrained to those who are licensed.

 

Secondly, Mr. Reed stated, the process will be ensured consistency by moving the activity to the Lovelock correctional facility.  Also, each institution’s panel will be replaced by a single panel, which would be housed at Lovelock.  He explained the consistency would be ensured because the panel “will basically be the same three panel members looking at the inmates.” 

 

Third, Mr. Reed testified, observation will be documented through the single- panel members.  Also, a computer system, Nevada Correctional Information System (NCIS), would track what programs the inmates are engaged in, how successful the inmates are in particular programs, and other kinds of records, Mr. Reed added. 

 

Senator James asked if the single panel would travel to Ely and Southern Nevada when needed.  Mr. Reed replied, “Yes, as you can see there is a fiscal note, predicated on the fact that the panel must travel.  The fiscal note was predicated on the fact there would be one hearing each month in the outlying institutions.” 

 

Dr. D’Amico added to Mr. Reed’s reply, “The audit had some criticism of the objectivity of the panel being involved in treatment programs.”  The concern would be eliminated; the panel is not actually involved in the treatment aspect of the program.  However, the panel is involved in the observation and overview records. 

 

Senator James inquired of Bradley A. Wilkinson, Legal Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, “What we have done, is pass a law that creates a crime, and then added where the law is codified, and the additional criteria that an offender must go through the panel before they can be considered for parole.”  Mr. Wilkinson replied, “Before the 1997 legislative session, the language was in each individual statute for the specific crime, and then in 1997 they were all moved to NRS 213.1214.” 

 

Senator James stated there is apparently a need for consistency.  He explained his understanding is that if one panel operates under one set of criteria then the process would become consistent.  Senator James offered the suggestion that the process would become more consistent if the panel operated with the same three individuals. 

 

Senator James further stated his concerns:

 

The Department of Prisons is not subject to the Administrative Procedures Act, so these criteria are going to be developed on an ad hoc basis by the director.  A few times in your testimony, Dr. D’Amico, you said under this director we have these things going on . . . that is what I am worried about.  It should not be just because we have this new director, we are going to get this kind of program.  Some time in the future we will again have a different director.  I am thinking maybe there should be some basic standards to build on, so there is a solid consistency.

 

Dr. D’Amico responded to Senator James’ concerns, stating that not all of the consistency can be controlled as there is always going to be new directors.  However, the bill specifies there will be a representative from the mental health division.  The bill also specifies the director will appoint a board-certified psychiatrist within the system.  He added that it is expected, if the bill passes, to designate term elements for the psychiatrists and psychologists.  For instance, the appointed psychiatrist will serve for a period of a year, and then be up for reappointment.  He commented that these terms would provide consistency. 

 

Mr. Reed reinforced Dr. D’Amico’s statement stating, “Public administration literature is replete with examples of how, after a legislative body is formed, policy is implemented in a way that was not necessarily intended.”  Mr. Reed addressed Senator James’ concern, saying that the procedures would be written into the administrative regulations. 

 

Senator James stated that some of the testimony goes beyond the hearing today.  However, he would need more information on what the panel hearings entailed, and what type of dialogue takes place.  Senator James requested an explanation from the testifiers on the actual events surrounding the panel hearings. 

 

Mr. Reed explained it is a technical operation.  The Department of Prisons has a division of classification system through the NCIS.  As an individual approaches parole once a month the computer system identifies those individuals, and also identifies if they are subject to “sex offender panel law.”  At this point, if the system’s output determines, the individual is then scheduled for a “psych” mental health panel.  Dr. D’Amico added there are criteria the panel will adhere to.  

 

Dr. Brandenburg stated that two weeks prior to the hearing there is a packet of presentence investigation, and that allows all the panel members to have a list of all the individuals who are coming up for panel review.  Once a review of the reports has taken place, Dr. Brandenburg indicated that a hearing takes place, under the open meeting law.  He explained that the panel interviews the inmate under criteria established by Doctor Donald Molde, Mental Health Director, Department of Prisons.  The criteria look at specific issues such as conciliation, does the inmate understand the charges, was the inmate involved in any sexual offender program, and does the inmate admit or deny responsibility of the crime, explained Dr. Brandenburg. 

 

Once the panel interview has taken place, Dr. Brandenburg added, “We find out if there is anyone in the public who wants to make a presentation about the inmate.”  He stated that lately there have been victims and family members who address the panel and indicate their concerns. 

 

Dr. Brandenburg stated that once the open hearings are over, the panel members make a determination.  Each member has a vote based on the certification process, and the majority rules.  At this time the inmate is not allowed to communicate with the panel, but can listen to the panel members’ discussion, indicated Dr. Brandenburg. 

 

Dr. Brandenburg explained the verbiage used in the amended bill.  Dr. Brandenburg asked Senator James and the committee to consider that “the language does not represent a high risk to re-offend based on a current acceptable standard of assessment.”  Dr. Brandenburg stated that the verbiage would develop a community standard, which is based on assessment on the inmate. 

 

Senator James stated the verbiage change seemed to be meaningful in regards to health, safety, and morals.  Senator James requested Dr. Brandenburg to provide the professional literature used to make the evaluations. 

 

Senator Wiener commented that she has sat through the parole hearings.  She asked the testifiers if the parole hearing was ignored because of the panel hearing.  Dr. Brandenburg replied that the inmate is not eligible for parole until the panel board certifies him or her.

 

Senator Wiener asked how many of the sex offender population have been sentenced for abuse and neglect.  Dr. D’Amico replied that not all child abusers are sex offenders.  However, the law does require child abusers to come before the sex offender panel, he added.  Senator Wiener asked how many would come before the panel on the basis of being a child abuser.  Dr. D’Amico stated he did not have the statistics available to answer the question posed by Senator Wiener. 

 

John C. Morrow, Lobbyist, Chief Deputy, Washoe County Public Defender, expressed his concern over the language involving health, safety, and morals.  He contended that the language was too broad, and needed to be changed.  Mr. Morrow added his support of Dr. Brandenburg’s language change. 

 

Mr. Morrow continued, “The same standard is used with individuals coming up for probation as in the presentencing investigation reports.”  Mr. Morrow suggested the same standard should be included into S.B. 241.  Senator James said he agreed with Mr. Morrow’s comments, and he stated, “When the panel conducts the hearing, the presentence investigation report is the first thing they look at.”  

 

David S. Gibson, Lobbyist, Clark County, stated that he delighted to hear proposals for a different standard.  Mr. Gibson indicated it is difficult “as attorneys, when we are working with these people.” 

 

Mr. Gibson stated that attempts are made to direct the individuals to what they are going to need to do after they get to prison, in terms of making progress.  He added that the wording of health, safety, and morals is unclear even to the attorneys.  He suggested it would be helpful to have language that directly refers to the re-offending issue.  Mr. Morrow stated the language would be beneficial to explain to the inmate, so they have a better understanding of their situation. 

 

Mr. Gibson stated that changing the health, safety, and morals language is beneficial.  However, there needs to also be a “why” explanation included as well.  Mr. Gibson concluded his testimony: 

 

When you have a client who is “nuts,” and must attempt to help them through the process it is very difficult.  As defenders, we had ways to defend them against the charges, because of their mental state.  Now we go through these hoops to have them distinguished from the other people in the prison because of their mental state.  And then nothing happens in the prison, it puts us in an ethical quandary.  It is hard to get someone to prison under that statute.  And so you go through all this work, working with the District Attorney, and they agree and are even sympathetic to the defendant because of their state of mind.  Then they go to prison, and they are simply abandoned.  The standards are just old, and need to be reformed. 

 

Mr. Reed responded to the comments of Mr. Gibson, stating, “The one issue I notice that Mr. Gibson spoke about, is moving the bulk of the sex offender population and the psych panel to Lovelock could possibly cause a diminished capacity to other institutions.”  Mr. Reed stated he does not believe this would be a problem. 

 

Senator James stated his other concern is those who are not receiving the segregation in the population and the needed treatment.   He added, “Mr. Gibson is reporting that this is a problem, and these individuals are not getting the help they need.”  Nevertheless, it is a problem that needs to be worked on, he added. 

 

Mr. Reed replied that he does acknowledge a competent medical health staff, but he acknowledged the comment being outside of his knowledge.   

 

There being no other business, Chairman James adjourned the hearing at 9:51 a.m.

 

                                                                                        RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Heather Dion,

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Senator Mark A. James, Chairman

 

 

DATE: